42 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
42 lines
1.5 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From murch at andrew.cmu.edu Fri Apr 6 09:47:27 2007
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Ken Murchison <murch@andrew.cmu.edu>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:39 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] RENAME Inbox
|
|
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
References: <46166C0B.9080308@andrew.cmu.edu>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060913190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
<87C9CB41-C741-43CE-81D6-8562110CBACD@goodserver.com>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.0.98.0704060934190.10346@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <4616799F.2030003@andrew.cmu.edu>
|
|
|
|
Mark Crispin wrote:
|
|
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, David Rauschenbach wrote:
|
|
>> So you're saying it is OK if the INBOX's UIDVALIDITY goes from 3,000
|
|
>> down to 1?
|
|
>
|
|
> I didn't say that!
|
|
>
|
|
> Ken's question about UIDVALIDITY being "reset" meant "set to a new
|
|
> value". I know Ken personally. He is far too intelligent and informed
|
|
> to propose implementing a UIDVALIDITY going backwards.
|
|
>
|
|
> Nonetheless, I understand your concern; and thank you for bringing this
|
|
> question up. We need to be careful about the words that we use. What
|
|
> was obvious to Ken and me was clearly not-obvious to you, even though we
|
|
> all knew that UIDVALIDITY can not ever go backwards. You were
|
|
> (rightfully!) alarmed.
|
|
|
|
Correct. Unfortunately, my response with the UIDVALIDITY response code
|
|
was incorrect. The response should include a UIVALIDITY > 3000.
|
|
|
|
Cyrus uses time(0) as the UIDVALIDITY, so my code wouldn't have made my
|
|
careless mistake.
|
|
|
|
--
|
|
Kenneth Murchison
|
|
Systems Programmer
|
|
Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
|
|
Carnegie Mellon University
|
|
|